#China military buildup

[creativemedianews]

China Conducts First Public Test Launch of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

China Conducts First Public Test Launch of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile #ChinaICBMtest #Chinesemilitarydrills

[mariacallous]

Americans on November 5 will be electing a wartime president. This isn’t a prediction. It’s reality.

Neither candidate has yet spoken plainly enough to the American people about the perils represented by the growing geopolitical and defense industrial collaboration among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This axis of aggressors may be unprecedented in the potential peril it represents.

Neither candidate has outlined the sort of generational strategy that will be required by the United States to address this challenge. Irrespective of whether former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris is elected, this will be the unavoidable context of their presidency. One will become commander-in-chief at the most perilous geopolitical moment since the Cold War—and perhaps since World War II.

In that spirit, Washington Post columnist George F. Will this week compared the 2024 US elections to the 1940 US elections, when the United States hadn’t yet formally declared war on Imperial Japan, Hitler’s Germany, or Mussolini’s Italy.

What was different then was that one of the two candidates, incumbent President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, sensed he was about to become a wartime president and was acting like it. FDR, wrote Will, “was nudging a mostly isolationist nation toward involvement in a global conflict” with his 1937 “quarantine speech” on aggressor nations and through his subsequent military buildup.

FDR’s opponent was Republican businessman Wendell Willkie, who like FDR was more internationalist than isolationist, in the tradition of his party’s elites of that time. “In three weeks,” Will writes, “Americans will not have a comparably reassuring choice when they select the president who will determine the nation’s conduct during World War III, which has begun.”

The point is that just as World War II began with “a cascade of crises,” initiated by the coalescing axis of Japan, Germany, and Italy, so today there is a similar axis—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Will reckons our current global crisis began no later than Russia’s 2014 seizure of Crimea.

This isn’t the first time that I have quoted diplomat-historian Philip Zelikow in this column. Writing in Texas National Security Review this summer, Zelikow reckoned that the next president has a 20-30 percent chance of being involved in worldwide warfare, which he differentiates from a world war in that not all parties will be involved in every aspect or region.

Zelikow, who recently expanded on these ideas among experts at the Atlantic Council, reckons that the next three years mark a moment of maximum danger. Should the United States navigate this period successfully, alongside global allies and partners, the underlying strengths of the American economy, defense industry, tech, and society should kick in and show their edge over those of the authoritarians.

The problem in the short term is that the United States is facing challengers in Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who may see a window of opportunity in the United States’ domestic distractions, a defense sector not yet adequate for emerging challenges, and an electorate that questions the value and necessity of US international engagement. Both leaders might calculate that acting more forcefully against Ukraine and Taiwan now could produce a greater chance of success than a few years in the future.

Wrote George Will: “From Russia’s western border to the waters where China is aggressively encroaching on Philippine sovereignty, the theater of today’s wars and almost-war episodes spans six of the globe’s 24 time zones.” He says this is what “the gathering storm” of world war looks like, borrowing the title of the first volume of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs.

Will charges the two presidential candidates with “reckless disregard” for failing to provide voters “any evidence of awareness, let alone serious thinking about, the growing global conflagration.”

If that sounds like hyperbole to you, it’s worth reading FDR’s third inaugural address in January 1941, almost a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which prompted Congress to declare war on Japan the following day.

“To us there has come a time,” said Roosevelt, “in the midst of swift happenings, to pause for a moment and take stock—to recall what our place in history has been, and to rediscover what we are and what we may be. If we do not, we risk the real peril of isolation, the real peril of inaction. Lives of nations are determined not by the count of years, but by the lifetime of the human spirit.”

War isn’t inevitable now any more than it was then. When disregarded, however, gathering storms of the sort we’re navigating gain strength.

“In the face of great perils never before encountered,” Roosevelt concluded, “our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy. For this we muster the spirit of America, and the faith of America.”

[somerabbitholes]

Books you would recommend on this topic? Colonial, post colonial, and Cold War Asia are topics that really interest me. (Essentially all of the 1900s)

Hello! An entire century is huge and I don't quite know what exactly you're looking for, but here we are, with a few books I like. I've tried organising them, but so many of these things bleed into each other so it's a bit of a jumble

Cold War

1971 by Srinath Raghavan: about the Bangladesh Liberation War within the context of the Cold War, US-Soviet rivalry, and the US-China axis in South Asia

Cold War in South Asia by Paul McGarr: largely focuses on India and Pakistan, and how the Cold War aggravated this rivalry; also how the existing tension added to the Cold War; also the transition from British dominance to US-Soviet contest

Kennedy, Johnson, and the Nonaligned World by Robert B. Rakove: on the US' ties with the Nonaligned countries during decolonisation and in the early years of the Cold War; how US policy dealt with containment, other strategic choices etc

South Asia's Cold War by Rajesh Basrur: specifically about nuclear buildup, armament and the Indo-Pak rivalry within the larger context of the Cold War, arms race, and disarmament movements

Colonialism

India's War by Srinath Raghavan: about India's involvement in World War II and generally what the war meant for South Asia politically, economically and in terms of defense strategies

The Coolie's Great War by Radhika Singha: about coolie labour (non-combatant forces) in the first World War that was transported from India to battlefronts in Europe, Asia and Africa

Unruly Waters by Sunil Amrith: an environmental history of South Asia through British colonial attempts of organising the flow of rivers and the region's coastlines

Underground Revolutionaries by Tim Harper: about revolutionary freedom fighters in Asia and how they met, encountered and borrowed from each other

Imperial Connections by Thomas R. Metcalf: about how the British Empire in the Indian Ocean was mapped out and governed from the Indian peninsula

Decolonisation/Postcolonial Asia

Army and Nation by Steven Wilkinson: a comparative look at civilian-army relations in post-Independence India and Pakistan; it tries to excavate why Pakistan went the way it did with an overwhelmingly powerful Army and a coup-prone democracy while India didn't, even though they inherited basically the same military structure

Muslim Zion by Faisal Devji: a history of the idea of Pakistan and its bearing on the nation-building project in the country

The South Asian Century by Joya Chatterji: it's a huge book on 20th century South Asia; looks at how the subcontinental landmass became three/four separate countries, and what means for history and culture and the people on the landmass

India Against Itself by Sanjib Baruah: about insurgency and statebuilding in Assam and the erstwhile NEFA in India's Northeast. Also see his In the Name of the Nation.

I hope this helps!

[darkmaga-returns]

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is undertaking an unprecedented military buildup aimed at challenging America and its allies, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. And, like Nazi Germany’s buildup in the 1930s, the militarization program ordered by the Chinese Communist Party isn’t simply a great power buildup — it’s a weapon in service of a deadly ideology.

The 2024 Department of Defense China Military Power Report and recent analysis by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times reveal this buildup as part of a broader strategy by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to position itself as a global superpower. Meanwhile, the U.S., having spent $5.4 trillion on the global war on terror and attendant, futile nation-building, has left itself strategically vulnerable by diverting critical resources while underestimating the threat from China.

Missile Expansion and Strategic Modernization

China has rapidly expanded the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) arsenal, adding, that we know of, some:

50 new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of striking the continental U.S., for a cumulative total of 400.

300 medium-range ballistic missiles and 100 long-range cruise missiles.

More than 600 operational nuclear warheads, projected to surpass 1,000 by 2030.

Hypersonic missiles like the DF-27, capable of evading U.S. missile defenses and targeting Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska​.

China’s navy, already the largest in the world with 370 ships and submarines, is expected to grow to 435 by 2030.

[thahxa]

honestly one of the taiwan things is like. if not for taiwan, what's the whole chinese military for? they put an entire 1-2% (or so) of GDP into there! which is like. a totally normal amount of GDP to spend except of course china is so damn big that they get to have lots of cool things like aircraft carriers and stealth fighters and... wait, has anyone figured out what this military is for yet?

like the US spends quite a bit on the military but it has an excuse at least - maintaining military bases in a double-digit number of countries and being europe's army is hard work! occasionally they even decide to go off and fight terrorism or do a coup or whatever

but... the chinese military? their last war was in 1979 (with border conflicts until '91) but since then it's been nothing except occasional border conflicts with india (where, remember, they are not allowed to use guns). china has a state policy of nonintervention in foreign affairs, for any reason (including humanitarian) and wasn't a participant in the war on terror (nor really, had any of their own). in the civil war with burma, a country that it directly borders and whose civil war would have major consequences for china, chinese policy has been to... let some guns fall off the back of PLA trucks to the wa state. it's aiming to have a blue water navy and rival the united states for... what exactly again?

but of course taiwan fixes this! china isn't going to be crossing the yalu to invade south korea or crossing into the jungles and invading vietnam - it has no reason, and honestly no desire to, even though it could probably win if it needed, but at least with taiwan you can justify this force buildup to the beancounters

[erebusvincent]

For all of Trump's rhetoric about "endless wars" and Vance's attacks on "neoconservatives," however, the two politicians are all-in on some of the establishment's most destructive military adventures. And in some ways, Trump and Vance are even more hawkish than the baseline.

"A lot of people recognize that we need to do something with Iran—but not these weak little bombing runs," Vance said in a Fox News interview at the Republican National Convention on Monday. "If you're going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard, and that's what [Trump] did when he took out [Iranian Gen. Qassem] Soleimani."

Vance praised Trump for trying to "enable the Israelis and the Sunni Arab states" to fight back against Iran. In a speech to the Quincy Institute in May, Vance tried to sell a U.S.-Israeli-Arab alliance as a way for the United States to "spend less time and less resources in the Middle East."

But that's exactly the strategy that got us here in the first place, and the proof is in the pudding. Trump's shows of force against Iran did not decisively end U.S.-Iranian conflict, nor did the Abraham Accords get Israel and the Arab states to pick up the military slack.

Instead, Trump ended up overseeing a massive U.S. military buildup in the region during his term and nearly went to war with Iran.

Vance even wants to add another counterinsurgency to America's "forever war" roster. In July 2023, he told NBC News that he would "empower the president of the United States, whether that's a Democrat or Republican, to use the power of the U.S. military to go after these drug cartels" in Latin America.

Washington is already heavily involved in that region's war on drugs, doling out support to Latin American militaries and border forces. Last year, several Republican candidates—including Trump himself—called for the United States to invade Mexico directly.

Trump and Vance also share the establishment view that the United States needs to get ready for a conflict with China over Taiwan. At the convention, Vance told Fox News that China is the "biggest threat" to America, and he has voiced support for building up the Taiwanese military with American weapons in the past.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Al Jazeera:

As elections in the United States draw closer, polls indicate that former President Donald Trump could be back in the Oval Office by early 2025. One possible indication of what a second Trump administration might look like is Project 2025, a transition plan spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank in Washington, DC. The 922-page doorstopper is essentially a how-to guide for a right-wing model of governance, proposing a dramatic overhaul of the federal government with plans to expand presidential power and purge the civil service of “liberals”. While largely focused on dismantling the “Deep State”, the document also offers pointers on foreign policy, striking a hawkish tone on China – “the most significant danger to Americans’ security, freedoms, and prosperity” – prioritising nuclear weapons production and curtailing international aid programmes.

How does Project 2025 see America’s place in the world?

On defence and foreign policy, Project 2025 aims for a definitive break with the administration of President Joe Biden. Christopher Miller, who served as defence secretary under Trump, slams Biden’s track record in the project’s hefty Mandate for Leadership section, speaking of “disturbing decay” and a “dangerous decline” in the “nation’s capabilities and will”. The signs are all there, Miller says, pointing to the “disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, our impossibly muddled China strategy, the growing involvement of senior military officers in the political arena, and deep confusion about the purpose of our military”. [...]

Taking on China

China is the project’s main defence concern. Miller fears the country is “undertaking a historic military buildup”, which “could result in a nuclear force that matches or exceeds America’s own nuclear arsenal”.

[...]

Targeting international aid

Max Primorac, senior research fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, dislikes the “woke ideas” being pushed by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). “The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systemic racism,” he says in the project’s Mandate for Leadership. The project’s main bugbears appear to be “gender radicalism” and abortion rights.

Primorac argues that promoting “gender radicalism” goes against “traditional norms of many societies where USAID works”, causing “resentment” because recipients have to reject their own “firmly held fundamental values regarding sexuality” to receive “lifesaving assistance”. It has also, he says, created “outright bias against men”. He claims that abortion on demand is “aggressively” promoted under the guise of “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights”, “gender equality” and “women’s empowerment”. To counter “woke ideas”, Project 2025 wants to “dismantle” all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which it views as “discriminatory”. Among other things, this would involve scrubbing from all USAID communications references to the terms “gender”, “gender equality”, “gender equity”, “gender diverse individuals”, “gender aware”, “gender sensitive”, “abortion”, “reproductive health” and “sexual and reproductive rights”.

What does Project 2025 propose on the domestic front?

Much of the manifesto bears a strong resemblance to Trump’s known policy proclivities with proposals to deport en masse more than 11 million undocumented immigrants and give states more control over education, limiting progressive initiatives on issues such as LGBTQ rights. But on some issues, it goes further than Trump’s campaign, calling on federal authorities to ban pornography and reverse approval of a pill used in abortions, mifepristone. It also calls for anyone providing or distributing abortion pills by mail to be prosecuted. Project 2025 pledges to restore “the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children”. It recommends the authorities “proudly state that men and women are biological realities” and that “married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them”.

Project 2025 spells disaster from a foreign policy and a national defense standpoint.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Mega Schemes

Huge hydraulic schemes are made possible by advanced modern civil engineering techniques. They require vast international contracts that are only possible at the level of central governments, international free floating capital and supranational government organisations. The financiers borrow money and lend it at commercial rates, so they favour largescale engineering projects that promise increasing production for export markets at the expense of local subsistence economies, with disastrous social and environmental effects. Cash crops destroy settled communities and cause pollution of soil and water. For instance, Ethiopia’s Third Five-Year Plan brought 60% of cultivated land in the fertile Awash Valley under cotton, evicting Afar pastoralists onto fragile uplands which accelerated deforestation and contributed to the country’s ecological crisis and famine. There’s a vicious circle at work. Development needs money. Loans can only be repaid through cash crops that earn foreign currency. These need lots more water than subsistence farming. Large hydraulic schemes to provide this water are development. Development needs money. And so it goes.

Large-scale projects everywhere are the consequence and justification for authoritarian government: one of America’s great dam-building organisations is the US Army Corps of Engineering. Stalin’s secret police supervised the construction of dams and canals. Soldiers such as Nasser of Egypt and Gadafi of Libya and military regimes in South America have been prominent in promoting such projects. Nasser built the Anwar High dam in 1971. The long-term consequences have been to stop the annual flow of silt onto delta land, requiring a growing use of expensive chemical fertilisers, and increased vulnerability to erosion from the Mediterranean. Formerly the annual flooding washed away the build-up of natural salts; now they increase the salt content of irrigated land. The buildup of silt behind the dam is reducing its electricity generating capacity; the lake is also responsible for the dramatic increase in water-borne diseases. Nationalism leads to hydraulic projects without thought to what happens downstream in other countries. The 1992 floods of the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Barak system killed 10,000 people. 500m people live in the region, nearly 10% of the world’s population, and they are constantly at risk from water exploitation and mismanagement. Technological imperialism has replaced the empire building of the past: large-scale hydro projects are exported to countries despite many inter-related problems – deforestation, intensive land use and disputes and so on. Large-scale water engineering projects foment international disputes and have become economic bargaining counters, for example the Pergau dam in Malaysia. The British Government agreed to spend £234m on it in 1989 in exchange for a £1.3bn arms deal. In 1994 the High Court ruled that the aid decision was unlawful but these kinds of corrupt deals continue.

In Sri Lanka the disruption caused by the Mahawelli dams and plantation projects resulted in the forcible eviction of 1 million people and helped maintain the insurgency of the Tamil Tigers that resulted in thousands of deaths as they fought government forces from the late 1980s onwards. In 1993 the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq were threatened by Saddam Hussein’s plans to drain the area – the most heavily populated part of the region. Many of the 100,000 inhabitants fled after being warned that any opposition risked death. Selincourt estimated that 3 million people would lose their homes, livelihoods, land and cultural identity by giant dam projects in the 1990s. The Kedung Ombo dam (Indonesia) displaced 25,000; the Akasombo dam (Ghana) 80,000; Caborra Bassa (South Africa) 25,000. Three dams in Laos alone will have displaced 142,000 people. The proposed Xiao Langdi dam in China would displace 140,000; the Three Gorges project 1.1 million people. Only war inflicts a similar level of human and environmental destruction, yet large dam projects have a chronic record in delivering water and power, or eliminating flooding in downstream valleys.

[workersolidarity]

China's push to hijack enemy satellites could be 'game over' for US, national security expert warns

Unlike the majority of journalists and commentators, I do not buy for one moment the official US media and govt's official story about the recent Pentagon Intelligence Leaks.

All this began when reports started popping up a few weeks ago about a US intelligence leak released on a discord server. These leaks purported to show intelligence on the Russo-Ukraine War, including troop concentrations and casualty counts that differed from public statements by officials.

Soon after the documents became public knowledge, the MSM media went into overdrive to uncover the leaker, literally doing the work of the FBI for them, with the NY Times and CIA news-front-organization Bellingcat tracing the leaks back to a 21 year-old Massachusetts Air National Guardsman named Jack Teixeira.

But how did a 21 year-old National Guardsman with a penchant for bragging on gaming discords get his hands on what appears to be high-level intelligence destined for high level officials including the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Well, we know some things about how the US conducts its security protocols with regards to Military technicians who edit and put together intelligence for the Pentagon.

For one, it is standard protocol to investigate and monitor the various online profiles of Military service members with access to highly classified documents. This is done by multiple departments within the Federal Bureaucracy.

So I find it EXTREMELY not credible that an Airman First Class with the Massachusetts Air National Guard, with access to Top Secret Intelligence for whatever the purposes, could have been disclosing photos of Intelligence on a gamer Discord server without those agency's knowledge.

I find it far more credible that these agencies were in fact aware of Mr. Teixeira's penchant for braggadocio online and used him to release intelligence that they couldn't credibly release any other way.

The whole story was suspect from the beginning and after the leaker was revealed, it became obvious to me something else was going on here.

As far as I can tell, and this not an uncommon tactic during wartime, especially before an offensive, is that these leaks are part of a counterintelligence operation designed to mislead Russian military planners before the beginning of the coming Ukrainian counteroffensive. If I'm correct, they will likely be backed by various false telecommunications and radio transmissions designed to be intercepted by Russian intelligence.

This intelligence may suggest troop buildups in the wrong places, give wrong coordinates for ammunition depots, or it may misstate the size and direction of troop concentrations. Usually this is done in preparation for a large-scale offensive, especially, if as is the case with Ukraine, you've spent most of the last three months making public statements announcing your impending offensive.

The Russians, predictably, have spent that time building up fortifications and supplying troops in the areas they expect the offensive to come. At this point, it has become quite obvious the Ukrainian counteroffensive will be extremely costly for Ukraine, both in terms of military hardware and equipment, and also in terms of manpower, two things the Ukrainians can no longer afford to lose. The Pentagon is well aware of this and they're well aware of the likelihood that Russian Forces will go on the offensive again the moment Ukrainian troop formations are weakened, exhausted and running out of ammunition.

So what's the solution for the Pentagon?

Well if I'm right, these Leaks are designed to make sure at least some Russian troop formations are placed in the wrong places at the wrong times.

Their hope, if this succeeds, is to cut the landbridge connecting Russian-held territory in the Donbas with Crimea. At that point they will still be exhausted and running out of ammunition, but if US Counterintelligence can succeed in their manipulations and misdirection, enough troops and equipment may survive to hold and occupy the territory for long enough to call for a ceasefire and begin negotiations with the Russians before Russian Forces can go on the offensive again and retake the lost territory.

The reason I say this is because it's becoming more and more obvious that the US and NATO can no longer continue to procure enough ammunition and hardware to keep the war going beyond this offensive, and leaders in Washington and the Pentagon are already turning their attention towards China and ratcheting up tensions over Taiwan. They cannot fight both Russia and China, and when it comes down to it, China is the larger threat to US Hegemony.

And that brings me to this article on Fox and more confirmation to me that this Intelligence leak was on purpose.

Apparently, some of the intelligence leaked had nothing to do with Ukraine or the Russians at all. Some of the intelligence is apparently about China.

Specifically, the intelligence claims China is developing its cyber capabilities to include the ability to hijack or destroy enemy satellites. Needless to say this technology could be devastating to US or NATO forces ability to operate it's Forces, command the seas and defend Taiwan in close coordination in the event of war.

It seems very convenient that once again, this leak includes intelligence that, contrary to hurting US interests, actually reinforces the US narratives around China and Taiwan.

The article goes so far as to claim China is only investing in cyber and space technology in order to "disrupt, degrade and destroy US space capabilities".

The article quotes John Hannah, former Vice President and noted War Criminal Dick Cheney's National Security Advisor, as saying, "The future of warfare, one of the most contested domains, is going to be space. Space, in essence, is the new high ground. [The] country that controls space and the next battlefield is effectively, I think, got the best chance of actually winning the war,"

"If China is able to knock out our ability to see what the enemy is doing, our ability to exert command and control and communications between our own forces, it's virtually game over for us on the battlefield here on Earth," he continued.

The real goal over the coming year or two will be to wrap up the Ukraine War and ramp up a whole new one with China over Taiwan, using proxies, sanctions, preventing technology transfers, and direct confrontation on the South China Sea in an effort to contain and slow China's rise.

These Neocons in the Biden Administration just hop from one crisis to the next, crushing and destroying anyone and anything in their wake, regardless whether they pose any actual threat to the US Empire or whether they're threats are just perceived in the minds of the war planners.

[libertariantaoist]

News Roundup 12/6/2023 | The Libertarian Institute

Here is your daily roundup of today's news:

News Roundup 12/6/2023

by Kyle Anzalone

US News

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has hit out at Americans who prefer a less interventionist foreign policy, smearing them as isolationists who want to see the US “retreat from responsibility.” AWC

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has scheduled a vote for Wednesday to advance President Biden’s massive $106 billion emergency spending request that includes military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, as well as additional funding for the border, POLITICO reported. AWC

Adm. Christopher Grady: US Can Handle Middle East, Russia and China All at Once. YouTubeThe Institute

China

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo called for tighter export controls on advanced technologies going to China and labeled Beijing “the biggest threat we’ve ever had.” AWC

Russia

White House Will Run Out of Funds to Arm Ukraine By the End of the Year. FTAWC

US Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources Geoffrey Pyatt explained that Washington was plotting a decade-long economic war targeting Moscow. The US has maintained sanctions on Russia since the 2014 Washington-backed coup in Ukraine sparked Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. Following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the economic war on the Russian economy was significantly intensified. The Institute

Bulgarian President Blocks Weapons Transfer to Ukraine. Newsweek

Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko has said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is turning Ukraine into an authoritarian state as public criticism of Ukrainian leadership is becoming more common. AWC

Zelensky Cancels Address to US Senate. Forbes 

Israel

Biden Admin Says US Intel Had No Knowledge of Hamas Battle Plans for October 7. Axios

The UK announced on Saturday that it would begin surveillance flights in the skies above Gaza in search of captives held by Hamas. Over the past month, the US has conducted drone operations seeking hostages. Both Washington and London have engaged in a military buildup in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea in support of Tel Aviv. The Institute 

UN Warns Israel Against Exacerbating the Already Catastrophic Humanitarian Situation in Gaza. VOA

Israel Hayom reported last week that some members of Congress have reviewed a plan to condition US aid to Arab countries on their willingness to accept refugees from Gaza, which would facilitate the Israeli goal of cleansing the territory of Palestinians. AWC

Israel intensified airstrikes in southern Gaza on Monday and bombed areas where it told Palestinians to seek shelter, Reuters reported. AWC

Amnesty International: “US-made Weapons Facilitated the Mass Killings of Extended Families” in Gaza. Press ReleaseThe Institute

Polling continues to show that the majority of Americans favor a lasting ceasefire in Gaza, a position the Biden administration has rejected. AWC

The IDF Ignored Warnings Hours Before October 7 Hamas Attack. Haaretz 

The House on Tuesday passed a resolution that says “anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” the chamber’s latest piece of legislation conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. AWC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed on Tuesday that he wants Israel’s military to maintain an open-ended occupation of the Gaza Strip after the current war. AWC

 Middle East

Officials Tell Politico that US Ships Under Threat in Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Politico 

The US Approves Arms Sales to UAE and Saudi Arabia. MEE

US officials are considering forming a Red Sea task force with other nations after a series of attacks by Yemen’s Houthis against commercial shipping that’s come in response to the Israeli onslaught in Gaza. AWC

Read More

[comeonamericawakeup]

"Our world resembles the 1930s more than we might think," said Hal Brands. As in the run-up to World War II, belligerent authoritarian states "are seeking expansive empires" and forming alliances, while a major "America First" political faction in the U.S. is preaching isolationism. Russia and China are not fully equivalent to Hitler's Germany and Imperial Japan, but as that era demonstrated, "the international order can collapse with devastating thoroughness and speed." China is conducting a massive military buildup in pursuit of its goal of absorbing Taiwan and dominating East Asia. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has escalated into a broad, dangerous conflict with NATO and the West. "The goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent major war," and deterrence will require a much greater capacity to produce artillery shells, other weapons, and air-defense systems to be shared with Ukraine and Taiwan. We also need to build more long-range missiles, ships, and submarines to keep the upper hand in "a great power war." In 1940, "the cost of failing to stop the fascist powers early was ghastly," including 60 million dead.

Containing and deterring Russia and China will not be easy or cheap, "but the alternative could be much worse."

THE WEEK March 29, 2024

[mariacallous]

Today, the flames of violent nationalism still flicker in the Balkans. Revisionist grievances and autocratic instincts animate leaders in Turkey and Hungary. The fallout from the 2009 European debt crisis and the years of hardship and austerity that followed showed that resentment of German influence—in this case, economic influence—is never deeply buried. Even today, as Putin gives European states every reason to work together, tensions between Ukraine and Poland or between France and Germany occasionally flare.

There are worrying political trends, as well. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has spent years deconstructing Hungarian democracy and touting the rise of the “illiberal state.” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is carrying out a similar project in his country. Parties such as the National Rally in France are rising in the polls and trafficking in a hard-edged nationalism that can easily turn into zero-sum geopolitical thinking, with centuries of historical grievances ready to be awakened. The far-right Alternative for Germany remains a political contender even as it becomes more extreme. The triumph of these movements might well be aided by a Russia assiduously waging political warfare, all too eager to set European states against one another.

A fractured Europe gripped by its ancient demons is a nightmare scenario, and nightmares usually don’t come true. But what is crucial to understand is that a post-American Europe would be fundamentally unlike the Europe we have come to know. The geopolitical shock absorbers provided by U.S. power and its umbrella over Europe will be gone. The destabilizing uncertainty over status and security will return. Countries will no longer feel so confident that they can ensure their survival without resorting to the behavior—the military buildups, the intense rivalries—that characterized earlier eras. Today’s Europe is the product of a historically unique, unprecedented configuration of power and influence created by the United States. Can we really be so sure that the bad old ways won’t reassert themselves once the very safeguards that have suppressed them for 75 years are withdrawn?

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Europe’s transformation into today’s peaceful EU can never be undone. After all, Europe experienced stretches of relative peace before 1945—in the decades after Napoleon’s defeat, for instance—only for that peace to collapse once the balance of power shifted. And don’t think that tragedy can’t befall a continent that seems so enlightened: The history of Europe, prior to U.S. engagement, was the history of the world’s most economically advanced, most thoroughly modern continent repeatedly tearing itself to shreds. Indeed, if there is a lesson from Europe’s past, it is that the descent can come sooner and be steeper than currently seems possible to imagine.

In the 1920s, the forces of liberalism seemed ascendant: British writer James Bryce hailed the “universal acceptance of democracy as the normal and natural form of government.” The newly founded League of Nations was offering novel mechanisms for crisis management. Countries were slashing their militaries and settling outstanding grievances from World War I. Just a decade later, it was the forces of fascism that had the momentum as the continent careened toward another world war. Europe’s own history is testament to how quickly and completely things can all fall apart.

America Firsters may think that the United States can have all the benefits of a stable Europe without paying any of the costs. In reality, their policies risk reminding us that Europe has a far nastier historical norm. That would be a calamity—and not just for Europe. A weaker, more fragmented Europe would make it harder for the democratic world to cope with challenges from Russia, China, or Iran. A violent, hypercompetitive Europe could cause fallout on a global scale.

If Europe has benefited from being part of a thriving liberal order in recent decades, that liberal order has benefited from having a peaceful, gradually expanding EU at its core. If Europe turns dark and vicious again, it might once more export its conflicts to the world. On the day that the United States retreats across the Atlantic, it will be placing far more than the future of Europe at risk.

Trump’s Return Would Transform Europe

[mightyflamethrower]

10 Facts About Communism

February 8, 2024 by The Historian

Communism, a socio-political ideology that emerged in response to the inequalities of industrial capitalism, has left an indelible mark on the course of history.

From its origins in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to its implementation in states like the Soviet Union and China, communism has sparked both fervent devotion and vehement criticism.

In this article, we delve into the complexities of communism’s legacy, examining its theoretical foundations, historical manifestations, and contemporary relevance.

From the classless society envisioned by its founders to the authoritarian regimes that characterized its implementation, we explore the multifaceted impact of communism on societies worldwide.

Communism Facts

1. Emerged in 19th century as response to capitalism’s inequalities

Communism arose as a socio-political response to the injustices and disparities brought about by industrial capitalism during the 19th century.

Also Read: Chernobyl Timeline

2. Aims for classless society with common ownership of production

Central to communist ideology is the vision of a classless society where the means of production are collectively owned by the people rather than controlled by a wealthy elite.

This collective ownership is intended to eliminate the disparities in wealth and power inherent in capitalist societies, ensuring that resources are distributed according to need rather than profit.

3. Marxism-Leninism adapted communism for Russia

Leninism, an adaptation of Marxist theory by Vladimir Lenin, was developed to suit the conditions of early 20th-century Russia.

Also Read: Timeline of Communism

It emphasized the necessity of a vanguard party to lead the proletariat (the working class) in a revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class).

Leninism also advocated for the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional stage towards the ultimate goal of a classless, stateless society.

4. Soviet Union first major communist state

Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, established the Soviet Union as the world’s first major communist state.

The Bolsheviks, later known as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), implemented Marxist-Leninist principles, including the nationalization of industry, collectivization of agriculture, and the establishment of a planned economy.

5. Cold War saw communism vs capitalism rivalry

The ideological conflict between communism and capitalism escalated into the Cold War, a geopolitical standoff between the United States and its allies (the Western bloc) and the Soviet Union and its allies (the Eastern bloc).

The Cold War, which lasted from the late 1940s to the early 1990s, was characterized by political tension, military buildup, espionage, and proxy wars fought in regions such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.

The rivalry between the two superpowers shaped global politics and international relations during this period.

6. Often led to authoritarian regimes and human rights abuses

While communism aspired to create a classless and egalitarian society, the implementation of communist regimes often resulted in authoritarian rule and widespread human rights abuses.

Examples include the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, Mao Zedong’s rule in China, and the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia under Pol Pot.

These regimes were characterized by political repression, mass purges, forced labor camps, and suppression of dissent. The authoritarian nature of communist governments led to criticism from both within and outside the communist movement, undermining the idealistic goals of communism.

7. Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, ending Cold War

The Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 marked the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the world’s largest communist state.

A combination of internal and external factors contributed to the collapse, including economic stagnation, political reforms initiated by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev (such as glasnost and perestroika), nationalist movements within the Soviet republics, and pressures from the Western bloc.

8. Few remaining communist states: Cuba, N. Korea, Vietnam, China

Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, a few countries continue to adhere to communist ideology to varying degrees these include:

Cuba, led by the Communist Party of Cuba since the Cuban Revolution in 1959

North Korea, governed by the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea under a highly centralized system

Vietnam, where the Communist Party of Vietnam maintains a one-party system following the reunification of North and South Vietnam in 1976

China, where the Communist Party of China has maintained authoritarian control over the country since 1949, albeit with significant economic reforms since the late 1970s.

9. Critics cite stifling of freedoms, inefficiency, corruption

Critics of communism often point to its track record of stifling individual freedoms, limiting economic innovation and efficiency, and fostering corruption and inefficiency.

The abolition of private property and centralization of economic control under state ownership have been criticized for suppressing entrepreneurial spirit and creativity.

Moreover, the concentration of power in the hands of the state has led to instances of authoritarianism, political repression, and human rights abuses in communist regimes throughout history.

10. Some advocate modern adaptations for communism’s ideals

Despite the historical failures of communist regimes, some individuals and groups continue to advocate for communist ideals while seeking to address past shortcomings and adapt to contemporary challenges.

This includes proposals for decentralized socialism, participatory democracy, and sustainable economic planning.

Advocates argue for a reimagining of communism that prioritizes individual liberties, democratic governance, and ecological sustainability, aiming to create a more equitable and just society without repeating the mistakes of the past.

[softsoundingsea]

Tamaki fights plans to build SDF training site in Okinawa

(This article was compiled from reports by Nen Satomi, Taro Ono and Satsuki Tanahashi.)

NAHA--Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki called on Defense Minister Minoru Kihara to retract plans to build a Self-Defense Force training site in his prefecture as the central government moves to bolster defenses in the nation’s southwestern islands.

“We cannot agree with the project,” Tamaki told Kihara at the Okinawa prefectural government office here Feb. 17 during a meeting that lasted less than 30 minutes. “We want the government to take the plan back to the drawing board and review it.”

The Defense Buildup Program, one of the three national security documents the government adopted in 2022, calls for enhancing SDF capabilities in southwestern Japan, centered around Okinawa Prefecture, due to China’s growing presence in the East China Sea.

The document said the Ground SDF’s 15th Brigade, which is based in Naha and comprises around 2,000 members, will be reorganized into a division.

The GSDF plans to open a new training ground in Uruma, Okinawa Prefecture, to handle the range of exercises required for the expanded division.

“In the face of the most severe and complicated security environment Japan has faced after World War II, we can lose no time in drastically reinforcing our defense capabilities based on the three national security documents,” Kihara told Tamaki during the meeting.

The proposed training site lies next to a residential area.

Residents are concerned about noise issues and the potential for accidents. Neighborhood community associations had already called for scrapping the project.

The meeting with Kihara marked the first time for Tamaki to publicly express his opposition to the project.

“The government has been hastily pressing everything forward particularly after it published the three security documents,” Tamaki told reporters after the meeting. “Anxiety among many prefectural residents is only growing, not subsiding.”

Before his meeting with Tamaki, Kihara sat down for talks with the heads of 11 municipalities in Okinawa Prefecture that host U.S. military bases.

Uruma Mayor Masato Nakamura told Kihara, “We want the central government to take the voices of local residents seriously and give careful consideration to the issue.”

Tamaki and Kihara also remained far apart over the project to relocate the U.S. Marine Corp Air Station Futenma in Ginowan, Okinawa Prefecture, to Nago, also in the prefecture.

While Tamaki renewed his call for suspending reclamation work, Kihara stressed that the government would forge ahead with the divisive project.

The Defense Ministry started reclamation work in Oura Bay north of Henoko Point in Nago in January after land minister Tetsuo Saito approved design changes by proxy the previous month, overriding Tamaki’s refusal to sign off on the modifications.

During the meeting, Tamaki called for convening a session of the Futenma air station burden reduction promotion council, which would bring together Kihara, Tamaki, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi, Ginowan Mayor Masanori Matsugawa and others.

The meeting was last held five years ago.

But Kihara said working-level officials will discuss the issue at a working group under the council.

“We renewed our determination to produce solid results toward reducing Okinawa’s base burden and drastically reinforcing defense capabilities in the southwestern region,” Kihara told reporters after the meeting.

Kihara’s visit was his first to Okinawa’s main island since taking office in September, which is exceptionally overdue for a newly appointed defense minister.

He visited Miyakojima and Ishigakijima, two islands in Okinawa Prefecture, in September to inspect GSDF units deployed at camps that opened in 2019 and March 2023, respectively.

Kihara met with Tamaki, who has consistently called for easing the U.S. bases burden borne by his prefecture, for the first time at the Defense Ministry in Tokyo in January.